PDA

View Full Version : Negative or Positive...


Jason Powell
03-23-2016, 06:32 PM
Who is going to see BATMAN V SUPERMAN no matter what? I mean a crap pile like STAR WARS:TFA can make that much money how can BATMAN V SUPERMAN fail?

-Jason

sevans
03-23-2016, 10:24 PM
I liked Star Wars BTW.

Never have liked Superman.... Sick of Lex always being the bad guy... Might wait

Jason Powell
03-23-2016, 10:30 PM
I liked Star Wars BTW.

Never have liked Superman.... Sick of Lex always being the bad guy... Might wait

Lex is a bad guy, soo... That is like saying let's make The Joker or Dr. Doom a good guy.

Bishop
03-24-2016, 12:00 AM
I'm seeing it tomorrow, but I'm seeing it for free. At least I won't have wasted money if it sucks. The reviews are horrible, even at geek sites, so I'm not going in with very high expectations.

sevans
03-24-2016, 03:23 AM
I meant.....How many superman movies are there. And how many have had Lex as the main bad guy?
Most of them.

dannycruz
03-24-2016, 02:29 PM
well, star wars was actually good, which is why it was continually making money at the box office. i think bvs is going to top the box office this weekend for sure but, if the film is as mediocre as the reviews are saying, the drop off is going to be significant the following weeks.

i'm still undecided myself. i think at best, it'll be a cool visual spectacle but the thing is i don't know if i want to sit through like 2 hours of dour, moody bullshit to get to like 20 or 30 minutes of the good stuff.

Jason Powell
03-24-2016, 02:31 PM
I'm seeing it tomorrow, but I'm seeing it for free. At least I won't have wasted money if it sucks. The reviews are horrible, even at geek sites, so I'm not going in with very high expectations.

I don't know, I have seen a lot of good and a lot of bad; but the bad is always saying stuff like, "It was to serious." or "Batman doesn't use guns." and stuff like that. But geeks seem to be liking it. The only really negative I have heard from geeks was there is just too much going on so it seems rushed. Which I think always happens when you have too many stories to tell. And if the rumor I heard is true, then the ending is going to knock Marvel's movies out of the water. I know some of you guys love Marvel's movies but I really have only enjoyed a few - IRON MAN part 1, Captain America 1 & 2, GURDIANS OF THE GALAXY and ANT-MAN. Though I did geek out for all of them and I will geek out for all of DC's no matter what too.

-Jason

Jason Powell
03-24-2016, 02:37 PM
well, star wars was actually good, which is why it was continually making money at the box office. i think bvs is going to top the box office this weekend for sure but, if the film is as mediocre as the reviews are saying, the drop off is going to be significant the following weeks.

i'm still undecided myself. i think at best, it'll be a cool visual spectacle but the thing is i don't know if i want to sit through like 2 hours of dour, moody bullshit to get to like 20 or 30 minutes of the good stuff.

See I disagree about Star War: TFA. I think the only reason it did as well as it did was because of geekdom.

I agree I have to see BVS to be sure but reviewers hardly ever express the same things as I do. Reviewers, I feel, say what the person pays them to say in a lot of cases. For instance they raved about THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 and that was a total disaster.

-Jason

Jason Powell
03-24-2016, 02:41 PM
I meant.....How many superman movies are there. And how many have had Lex as the main bad guy?
Most of them.

True that is why I am glad TMOS started with ZOD but LEX is SUPERMAN's #1 bad guy, can imagine Batman if they never had The Joker?

-Jason

Bishop
03-24-2016, 02:57 PM
I generally agree with Jeremy Jahns. This was his take:

aC4rt7K8fPY

Jason Powell
03-24-2016, 05:22 PM
I generally agree with Jeremy Jahns. This was his take:


This is what I got from his review. He hates Jesse Eisenberg. Okay, I get that, but he liked his character, he just wishes someone else played him. He thought the story was too long and not enough pay off. And he didn't like CGI for DOOMSDAY.

So other than personal taste he liked the movie.

Personally I like Jesse Eisenberg so he will not be the reason for me not liking the movie. I will have to see the movie myself in 3 1/2 hrs to determine the rest. I'll let you know.

-Jason

Bishop
03-24-2016, 09:11 PM
Got out about an hour ago. This is not a good movie. Batfleck was actually very good. Wonder Woman was great, and the highlight of the movie for me. Superman was Superman. Luther was Aaron Levie.

Snyder just isn't a good story teller. The action was really good and the visuals were top notch for the most part, but the storytelling was not good.

TeleKill
03-25-2016, 12:00 AM
Looks absolutely terrible. A waste of my time and money. Ii'll be watching it on Saturday! So ... yeah, you put the trinity in a movie and I'll see it no matter what.

Jason Powell
03-25-2016, 12:38 AM
I thought it was awesome.

The good:

1) Ben is definitely, without a doubt, the best Batman to date. Both as Bruce Wayne and Batman - awesome.

2) Wonder Woman, again awesome. Didn't think Gal Godot would be able to pull it off but I am happy to say I was so, so, so wrong.

Just so I do not go on and on, all the casting was great.

3) Forget what you heard about DOOMSDAY looking crappy. He looked great. What was seen in trailer was a early version, remember he changes as he gets hurt which is so true here.

4) The BS about the actual fight only being 10 mins is just that, BS. In all it is a little over 30 mins and there is tons of action in between.

5) The ending, not revealing anything but when non fans walk out of the theatre in ah over just the ending, that says something.

6) All the Justice League. Not saying how you see them but we see them all and more.

7) If you are a DC fan, there are soooooooo many geek moments.

Now the bad:

1) This really should of been two movies. There is so much backstory that needed exploring. I am not saying the story was bad, just a lot. You can tell they rushed this out so they could get to Justice League.

2) The cut scenes are obvious. Who ever did the editing should be fired. I am now dying to see the Directors cut just to see the full story.

3) The only character I felt any emotion for was Batman. You have to feel empathy for him. Everyone else was just there. Not saying they didn't try, it was just too little to pull you in.

4) We didn't need the flash back for Batman's origin. Everyone knows where he came from. It was wasted film.

That is it.

I really enjoyed it. It is not a Marvel film but it is not meant to be. If you go in with that in mind, you should enjoy it too. If not, well...

-Jason

Moonrider
03-25-2016, 10:15 AM
Just watched the movie, and yeah I agree on most of the points listed by Jason.
One thing I regret about the movie is that while it addressed some of the fan critics on Man of Steel, it does not necessarily improve on it. Superman as Clark Kent still end up pretty much being a man out of touch with the world he lives in and a character we can't really like but we just have to accept. Ben Affleck as Batman though, is frickin' awesome.
Look, it's not the best superhero movie out there, but it's a solid production nonetheless.

Jason Powell
03-25-2016, 11:33 AM
Superman as Clark Kent still end up pretty much being a man out of touch with the world he lives in and a character we can't really like but we just have to accept.

I think that is why it ended they way it did. Superman needs a major over hall. Not the actor, per say, but his thinking, his actions, and even his costume. I really hope this leads to a more classic Superman.

Buckyrig
03-25-2016, 12:38 PM
I meant.....How many superman movies are there. And how many have had Lex as the main bad guy?
Most of them.

Who else are you really going to put in a Superman movie though? Maybe Braniac. Not sure anything else works. Mxyzptlk is too out there to base a movie around. Bizarro the same. Metallo would just be Zod with less story. Maxima? Toyman? Prankster? The next best option would probably be to create a villain just for the movie . . . which would cause its own pile of complaints. (Well, I guess Marvel is going to attempt Thanos, so maybe DC could go with Darkseid, but there are more ways for that to go wrong than right, and would work better for a Justice League movie.)

Snyder just isn't a good story teller.

I'm glad more and more people are beginning to realize this.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03/22/batman-v-superman-review-zack-snyders-doomsday

With all preconceived notions of how Batman and Superman should be portrayed put aside, I can say with complete certainty that Batman v Superman is not a particularly well made film. It is, in fact, the film that finally drives home to me the reality that Zack Snyder is not particularly great at storytelling. I have spent many years defending Snyder, who I think is a first rate visual stylist (and who conjures up some excellent images in this film), but even I have to put down my sword. Zack Snyder, left to his own devices, cannot tell a story.


Annnnnnd . . . I'll go see it next week sometime I suppose. Because the addictive behavior of the fan base is the foundation of modern geek industry.

Buckyrig
03-25-2016, 12:42 PM
I really enjoyed it. It is not a Marvel film but it is not meant to be. If you go in with that in mind, you should enjoy it too. If not, well...

DC really needs to stop planning contra-Marvel. Just make your fucking movies independent of whatever the hell Marvel is doing. If it's similar, it's similar, if it's the opposite, it's the opposite, if it's its own thing (gee, try this maybe :slap: ), it's its own thing.

Bishop
03-25-2016, 01:34 PM
DC really needs to stop planning contra-Marvel. Just make your fucking movies independent of whatever the hell Marvel is doing. If it's similar, it's similar, if it's the opposite, it's the opposite, if it's its own thing (gee, try this maybe :slap: ), it's its own thing.

I couldn't agree more.

Jason Powell
03-25-2016, 10:54 PM
DC really needs to stop planning contra-Marvel. Just make your fucking movies independent of whatever the hell Marvel is doing. If it's similar, it's similar, if it's the opposite, it's the opposite, if it's its own thing (gee, try this maybe :slap: ), it's its own thing.

That's rediculous, if you make the same thing that is already out there then why would people want to see your movie? Now would I have done it different, yeah. Fact is people don't have long attention spans so a 2 1/2 hr movie is a hard sale anyway but complaining it is not in Marvel's mold is stupid.

Buckyrig
03-26-2016, 11:58 AM
That's rediculous, if you make the same thing that is already out there then why would people want to see your movie?

Superman and Batman aren't Iron Man and Captain America. DC wouldn't be making the same thing even if they used the same formula. A formula which A LOT of people are using recently.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41FU%2BOHmQAL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Marvel is also hiring directors to film Marvel's vision for each of their films, rather than hiring a director to film his or her own vision . . . like DC with Snyder. That's why the Marvel cinematic universe feels so tightly intertwined.

And it doesn't help when you hire a style-over-substance objectivist to oversee Superman and the Justice League.

Jason Powell
03-26-2016, 09:25 PM
Superman and Batman aren't Iron Man and Captain America. DC wouldn't be making the same thing even if they used the same formula. A formula which A LOT of people are using recently.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41FU%2BOHmQAL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Marvel is also hiring directors to film Marvel's vision for each of their films, rather than hiring a director to film his or her own vision . . . like DC with Snyder. That's why the Marvel cinematic universe feels so tightly intertwined.

And it doesn't help when you hire a style-over-substance objectivist to oversee Superman and the Justice League.

Saying Zac wasn't following the comics is BS. Allot of the scenes where pulled strength from the comics. I personally feel the only real problem is he tried to do too much.

Moonrider
03-27-2016, 12:36 AM
Apparently, Snyder basically said that he toned down the Frank Miller-ism a bit by not having Batman shoot a thug in the face.

I can't argue that Marvel's tendency to hire directors who would be on board with their vision instead of vice versa made their movies pretty tight and standardized for their advantage, but gosh... I still wished that I could see what Edgar Wright's Ant-Man movie would look like.

sevans
03-27-2016, 02:01 AM
Fact is people don't have long attention spans so a 2 1/2 hr movie

Really... Nolans Batman films were pretty damn long.
Every Tarantino movie ever is damn long....with a ton of dialogue.

Some crazy people even like that Lord of the Rings stuff, about a long walk.

There are alot of very long films, IF TOLD WELL they are entertaining.

Jason Powell
03-27-2016, 05:27 PM
Really... Nolans Batman films were pretty damn long.
Every Tarantino movie ever is damn long....with a ton of dialogue.

Some crazy people even like that Lord of the Rings stuff, about a long walk.

There are alot of very long films, IF TOLD WELL they are entertaining.

Save Batman Begins, the rest of the movies were fairly boring. I think Heath saved The Dark Knight in several ways. His Joker was really good and his tragic death brought more viewers out of sympathy and respect for him.

And at a 424 million opening so far Snyder must of done something right. I doubt WB is sweeting at all now. The movie should easily hit a billion +. I doubt Star Wars #s but still fairly high.

dannycruz
03-28-2016, 02:24 PM
yeah, $420 million or thereabouts worldwide but domestically, it fell short of avengers and iron man 3 numbers.
and as of now, it also holds the record for the largest friday to sunday decline.

Buckyrig
03-28-2016, 02:47 PM
And at a 424 million opening so far Snyder must of done something right.

Commercially, sure. But successful and good aren't coextensive.

And I really can't imagine a movie so well-drubbed by the critics being seen as very good by the fan base in a few years with the sobering passage of time.

Morganza
03-28-2016, 06:59 PM
I wonder if sitting through the 3 hour Directors Cut will make it better. Find out in July!

Bishop
03-28-2016, 06:59 PM
Next weekends numbers will be very telling as far as the success of the film.

Jason Powell
03-28-2016, 09:24 PM
It is already a success in many ways and made it's budget back so it is just profit now. And it will reach WBs magic number, 1 billion, before it exits theaters (I give it 4 or 5 weeks). Now I do not think it will hit 2 Billion but I wouldn't be surprised if it did also with DVD sales.

Rob Norton
03-29-2016, 11:54 PM
Really... Nolans Batman films were pretty damn long.
Every Tarantino movie ever is damn long....with a ton of dialogue.

Some crazy people even like that Lord of the Rings stuff, about a long walk.

There are alot of very long films, IF TOLD WELL they are entertaining.

thank you for saying that. i was gonna say the exact same thing. i hate the bullshit argument "people dont have long attention spans" used to explain why people dont like something.

just like all the examples you listed, a good engaging movie will keep any audience entertained. now..a loud, chaotic overstuffed film that people arent really digging...yeah..they get turned off.

Rob Norton
03-30-2016, 12:00 AM
Save Batman Begins, the rest of the movies were fairly boring. I think Heath saved The Dark Knight in several ways. His Joker was really good and his tragic death brought more viewers out of sympathy and respect for him.

And at a 424 million opening so far Snyder must of done something right. I doubt WB is sweeting at all now. The movie should easily hit a billion +. I doubt Star Wars #s but still fairly high.

dark knight boring? really? Heath "saved" the film and his death brough in people who were just sad? thats bullshit.

its good because it was really really good.

you dont have to like the film, just like i dont have to like BVS, but implying a massivley financially and critically successful film isnt any good cause you dont like it is kinda silly. yeah..BVS is bringing in the cash...but the vast majority of people arent digging it a fraction as much as the dark knight. that doesnt have to detract from your enjoyment of it tho. but its a critical failure. and its not cause people have "short attention spans".

Bishop
03-30-2016, 08:11 AM
It is already a success in many ways and made it's budget back so it is just profit now. And it will reach WBs magic number, 1 billion, before it exits theaters (I give it 4 or 5 weeks). Now I do not think it will hit 2 Billion but I wouldn't be surprised if it did also with DVD sales.

Making it's money back doesn't necessarily make it a success in the eyes of the studio. They are looking for a certain amount of profit before they consider throwing money at a sequel, etc. Therefore, I still think next weekends numbers will tell the story on how successful the movie is going to be in the end. The movie has broken a number of records, and not all of them are good...

BATMAN V SUPERMAN SAW MAJOR DROP IN ATTENDANCE FRI-SUN (http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/03/29/batman-v-superman-saw-major-drop-in-attendance-fri-sun)

dannycruz
03-30-2016, 03:38 PM
They are looking for a certain amount of profit before they consider throwing money at a sequel, etc.

Justice League has been in development for like the past year or so already and they're a little less than 2 weeks away from filming. So it seems like a sequel is happening no matter what.

Bishop
03-30-2016, 04:30 PM
I just hate that Zack Snyder is directing that one too.

Jason Powell
03-30-2016, 08:42 PM
dark knight boring? really? Heath "saved" the film and his death brough in people who were just sad? thats bullshit.

its good because it was really really good.

you dont have to like the film, just like i dont have to like BVS, but implying a massivley financially and critically successful film isnt any good cause you dont like it is kinda silly. yeah..BVS is bringing in the cash...but the vast majority of people arent digging it a fraction as much as the dark knight. that doesnt have to detract from your enjoyment of it tho. but its a critical failure. and its not cause people have "short attention spans".

Rob, I loved The Joker, but the movie was ahhhh... So/so at best. And to deny that Heath's death had nothing to do with it's extreme success is ridiculous to say the least. I don't doubt it would of made money either way, but not near as much. It was a good movie but no where as good as Batman Begins. And 3rd film was not near as good compared the TDK. But you are right these are opinions as are all your comments. But I did give my honest opinion before. The had a hack editing job. That was a big factor for people going "hunh?." But you can not deny that also the length had a lot to do with it. There was just too much story. That I feel was the failure in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES also. They should of left out CATWOMAN and TALIA and just had Batman vs Bane. But digress the past is the past.

The fact is though the movie is still making money and we will have to wait and see what THE JUSTICE LEAGUE movie brings us.

Jason Powell
03-30-2016, 08:56 PM
Making it's money back doesn't necessarily make it a success in the eyes of the studio. They are looking for a certain amount of profit before they consider throwing money at a sequel, etc. Therefore, I still think next weekends numbers will tell the story on how successful the movie is going to be in the end. The movie has broken a number of records, and not all of them are good...

BATMAN V SUPERMAN SAW MAJOR DROP IN ATTENDANCE FRI-SUN (http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/03/29/batman-v-superman-saw-major-drop-in-attendance-fri-sun)

WB's magic # is between 800 million and 1 Billion. The movie has already made 500 million as of Wed. Going by current trend it should make about 600 million by Friday (give or take 20 million). Weekend box office should be over 200 million (due to more people going to the movies and there is no real competition) so that is already 800 million. The movie will be in theaters for at least 3 more weeks so with stragglers it should hit 1 billion + before it leaves theaters. So just going by trends it is already a success. Could it of been better. Yeah, I believe they could of got 2 billion easily with a better story but the little engine that could keeps surprising critiques so WB has got to be thrilled so far.

And yes THE JUSTICE LEAGUE is getting made no matter what. Will there be changes. I am sure. WB would be idiots not to take notes of the negative things said so far, but don't fool yourself into thinking the movie will not get made.

Moonrider
03-31-2016, 11:56 AM
I would be willing to let aside all the flaws and plotholes that WB did with the DC cinematic universe, yes including Green Lantern, if they are willing to get

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/seinfeld/images/4/49/Bryan-cranston.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120902184809

to play

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/DarkseidCrain.jpg/250px-DarkseidCrain.jpg

That is all.

Duane Korslund
03-31-2016, 12:18 PM
I would be willing to let aside all the flaws and plotholes that WB did with the DC cinematic universe, yes including Green Lantern, if they are willing to get

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/seinfeld/images/4/49/Bryan-cranston.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120902184809

to play

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/DarkseidCrain.jpg/250px-DarkseidCrain.jpg

That is all.

Screw it, recast him as Batman, Superman, Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman....

Buckyrig
03-31-2016, 12:43 PM
Man, even Kevin Smith hates this movie.

uhvBVDPN7OM

"Batman v Superman [. . .] is the movie that finally answers the question: what would happen if Batman and Superman were both fucking assholes."

:laugh:

Morganza
03-31-2016, 05:09 PM
So who's looking forward to Justice League??? I'm so put off by the Snyder-Man universe I may actually pass, the core characters mean something to me.

Jason Powell
03-31-2016, 10:35 PM
So who's looking forward to Justice League??? I'm so put off by the Snyder-Man universe I may actually pass, the core characters mean something to me.

I am interested in seeing what he does. I mean yes the movie was not perfect and Superman has been a shadow of the character we know but he did give us the perfect Batman and Wonder Woman so far. And he laid the ground work for Suicide Squad which looks awesome so let's see. Also I am sure he and WB has learned from this.

BTW 530 + Million so it is totally on track for 800 million this weekend still, so I am still expecting 1 billion + before it leaves theaters.

Morganza
03-31-2016, 10:54 PM
I'm hoping Suicide Squad is a hit, but I heard they are doing major reshooting, that's suspect.

Jason Powell
03-31-2016, 10:56 PM
I'm hoping Suicide Squad is a hit, but I heard they are doing major reshooting, that's suspect.

I don't know if that is true, but if it is then it shows WB is taking notes.

Moonrider
04-01-2016, 12:29 AM
Screw it, recast him as Batman, Superman, Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman....

"It's a bird! It's a plane!"
"No. I am the one who knocks."

"Is she with you?"
"I thought she's with you."
"Say my name."
"You're Wonder Woman."
"You're Goddamn right."

Bishop
04-01-2016, 08:58 AM
What I read was that the Suicide Squad reshoots were being done to add humor and jokes to the movie. Supposedly 10 million was allocated for those.

Jason Powell
04-01-2016, 11:20 AM
What I read was that the Suicide Squad reshoots were being done to add humor and jokes to the movie. Supposedly 10 million was allocated for those.

Yeah I heard that too, from my understanding the movie didn't really convey the humor projected in the trailers so they are working on that. I hope for the best but we will see.

Buckyrig
04-01-2016, 11:49 AM
What I read was that the Suicide Squad reshoots were being done to add humor and jokes to the movie. Supposedly 10 million was allocated for those.

Shit, what's a knock knock joke go for these days? :huh:

Morganza
04-01-2016, 01:11 PM
I have a feeling they are going to go too far with the jokes and kill any drama they built up, it's a movie about villains, how funny does it have to be!?

Duane Korslund
04-01-2016, 01:15 PM
I have a feeling they are going to go too far with the jokes and kill any drama they built up, it's a movie about villains, how funny does it have to be!?

when Joker and Harley are there? Gotta be a little funny in it...hopefully they dont go to far.

omega sentry
04-01-2016, 07:14 PM
I would be willing to let aside all the flaws and plotholes that WB did with the DC cinematic universe, yes including Green Lantern, if they are willing to get

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/seinfeld/images/4/49/Bryan-cranston.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120902184809

to play

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/DarkseidCrain.jpg/250px-DarkseidCrain.jpg

That is all.
Actually he should have been Luthor. I agree I don't think they should of touched SS. There was a big difference between what was going on on with bats v sups than with suicide. Last time a board room touched a movie we got the F4 reboot.

Haven't see the movie yet but critics have said what I expected them too. Lex errrhhh.

I got the same problem with apocalypse horrible choice on his design. The movie hero is always as good as his villan. I just can't take apocypse serious with that design.

Jason Powell
04-01-2016, 11:12 PM
Actually he should have been Luthor. I agree I don't think they should of touched SS. There was a big difference between what was going on on with bats v sups than with suicide. Last time a board room touched a movie we got the F4 reboot.

Haven't see the movie yet but critics have said what I expected them too. Lex errrhhh.

I got the same problem with apocalypse horrible choice on his design. The movie hero is always as good as his villan. I just can't take apocypse serious with that design.

Two things about all this Lex talk. Remember this was LEX LUTHER JR. so who knows, maybe they will still have the original LEX LUTHER and who might play him.

Moonrider
04-01-2016, 11:48 PM
Actually he should have been Luthor.

I think he was at one time in talks for the part of Luthor, and Jesse Eisenberg was up for the role of Jimmy Olsen. With Eisenberg ultimately getting the Luthor role, the Jimmy Olsen character removed from the plot, and how WB didn't even put Cranston up for James Gordon (which would be perfect casting), I'm hoping that they secretly save him for later to play Darkseid. After all, who better have the charisma and presence that rivals or even surpass Josh Brolin as Thanos? Certainly not Gerard Butler. :rolleyes:

omega sentry
04-02-2016, 02:03 AM
Two things about all this Lex talk. Remember this was LEX LUTHER JR. so who knows, maybe they will still have the original LEX LUTHER and who might play him.

Wasn't lex a jr anyways? Also I don't think Alexander Joseph "lex" Luthor jr. So his playing a different character or he is lex Luthor. There is no confirmation that I see and online he is credited as lex Luther along with other actors that have played him.

Jason Powell
04-02-2016, 02:28 AM
Wasn't lex a jr anyways? Also I don't think Alexander Joseph "lex" Luthor jr. So his playing a different character or he is lex Luthor. There is no confirmation that I see and online he is credited as lex Luther along with other actors that have played him.

I can't remember of any movie saying he was LEX LUTHER JR except BVS, correct me if I am wrong. And I know at one time Lex cloned himself because he was dying and transferred his brain into the new body and said that was LEX LUTHER JR to maintain his wealth and power. But the story in this movie was he inherited his fortune from his father who obviously abused him and made him into what he was. Who is to say his father didn't fake death or something which could lead to the classic Lex Luther story. Of course that is if they even make another Superman movie.

-Jason

Angel
04-02-2016, 03:51 AM
Eisenberg was cast as Lex Luthor. Definitely meant to be THE Lex Luthor. Why would they waste any time with a silly Lex Luthor Jr plot? That makes no sense. But many things didn't make sense about the movie.

And I am not talking about a bunch of suspension of disbelief details.

I mean Bruce Wayne's motivation for hating and fearing Superman was because he witnessed Superman sacrificing his own safety and preventing the world from being terraformed and destroyed by a maniac that was forcing the widespread destruction of Metropolis. In this, Batman has the exact same level of fear and paranoia as Luthor. The inspiration for TDKR conflict was Superman became a shill of the government. In BVS Superman has done nothing wrong.

This was unbefitting and intellect like Bruce's...shitty writing.

Bruce's precognitive nightmares about the coming of Darkseid was very odd. How would his subconscious have any knowledge of Darkseid and parademons at this point? They are opening a whole can of worms with that.

The classic powerless Superman. It is possible that this Superman hasn't honed his powers at all yet, but without Luthor taking extra precautions, how was Superman not able to locate and rescue his mother? How could he not detect the bomb plot? Why would he have not disabled or relocated the Kryptonian ship?...shitty writing.

Diana Prince. Gal Gadot was beautiful and quietly charismatic but casting what looked to be a solid size zero as an Amazonian just doesn't cut it. Look at all of the physical conditioning the other two hero actors went into to embody their roles and yet all they did was put a thin...gorgeous...but thin slight actress into a costume to make her WW. ....shitty writing.

Jason Powell
04-02-2016, 10:20 AM
You need to watch the movie again it already mentions that he is Lex Luther Jr.

The reason he feared Superman is because he feared he would turn bad. Have you never heard, "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely". Also if you think about it, the dreams are visions of the future. Not really dreams. Batman just can't separate the dreams from reality. Hence forth The Flash scene. You think it is just a dream but when Bruce wakes up you see paper flying beside him like the dream. Wonder why? Think about it. Also I totally believe Superman will be the Bad guy in JL part 1 (alla Cyborg Superman) and the real Superman will return at the end.

The rest I think you are over thinking it. Also the cappy editing took a lot out.

dannycruz
04-02-2016, 12:00 PM
well dam, its estimated for an 80% decline this weekend.

Angel
04-02-2016, 09:00 PM
Jason, I doubt I will watch the movie again but yeah I caught the Lex Jr., thing. It's just that I believe Lex Jr was supposed to the classic Lex Luthor in this version and they nodded to this by balding his head in his indoc delousing process in prison.

Batman/Bruce (at least in the comics) has a greater intellect than to attack and damn near kill a man on a philosophical premise such as he MIGHT do something bad one day. The statement about absolute power could provoke him to do something about Supermen AFTER he is corrupted not because he might one day become a problem. With all of the information Bruce had from the movie Superman just saved the planet and has been doing good deeds there was nothing besides paranoia to provoke him. That is lazy thinking and lazy writing. As a matter of fact...the intellectually sound Bruce of about 85%of the comics would have tried to make Superman an asset and find out more about him at that point not make him an enemy. That is not overthinking. Accepting Batman's motivations in what they presented to us onscreen...is underthinking it.


How is Superman having super hearing, telescopic vision, x-ray vision, super speed, heat vision, super strength, and flight and still not using them to prevent the attack on the congressional hearing, or save his mother, and instead just being a dupe for Lex, and all of the other silly missteps overthinking things?

I think audiences and fans will always be fed shit if they are happy with eating shit.

omega sentry
04-03-2016, 02:54 AM
I'm not going to read all of your stuff yet because I don't want to spoil the movie for my self but for some one who's over critical on this movie you sure sounded like a starwars apologist that saw nothing wrong with that movie. Based on the way your reply sounded that is, and you sounded offended.

Angel
04-03-2016, 05:48 AM
What does Star Wars have to do with the plot of Batman V Superman? A person can be dead on about one thing and dead wrong about another. This thread is about Batman V Superman not Star Wars so lets just address each in it's respective thread.

Moonrider
04-03-2016, 08:57 AM
Bruce had beef with Superman because he saw how terrible a power like his can do when he watched Zod obliterated the Wayne building with his laser eyes. For roughly 10 years of his decades long career as Batman he has been waging war on crime alone, becoming more brutal as time went on. You can see why he has trust issues. The Capitol bombing, orchestrated by Luthor, was the last straw for him because whatever good Superman may have done, in his eyes the Kryptonian will eventually only do more harm. Flimsy plot? Eh, whatever. At least it's better than having Luthor detonating a bomb to gain monopoly on real estates.

Buckyrig
04-03-2016, 11:32 AM
I think audiences and fans will always be fed shit if they are happy with eating shit.

Yup.

And it probably doesn't help that the internet, and all the niche corners it's cultivated, have often fed fan bases indulgence over story craft. You hit the right bits of fan service in your comic/tv show/movie, and a good deal of other garbage will likely be overlooked.


Honestly, the whole superhero X (or superheroes) cause the advent of supervillains is one of those concepts that really isn't interesting. It's tugging at the threads of the basic premise of superhero fiction. It's really no different than pointing out the impossibility of superpowers. You don't examince the logic behind Superman's powers too much, you just go with it. Same with the advent of supervillains coinciding with superheroes.

I mean, the real reason is because a superhero fighting thugs isn't interesting. It's difficult to cultivate authentic thematic elements from something designed to address a genre-specific issue for purely functional reasons.

Bishop
04-09-2016, 02:11 PM
That's gotta sting a little

="http://comicbook.com/dc/2016/04/09/batman-v-superman-projected-to-be-less-profitable-than-man-of-st/

Jason Powell
04-09-2016, 11:58 PM
That's gotta sting a little

="http://comicbook.com/dc/2016/04/09/batman-v-superman-projected-to-be-less-profitable-than-man-of-st/

Yeah, BVS has already made $49 million more that MOS, sooooo.... Also it took 6 weeks for MOS to make $668 million. We are currently at $742 million on the 3rd week. Also merchandise sales are much higher and we have not even got to DVD sales. So comicbook.com needs to check their facts. I am not saying BVS did as good as it could have. I completely agree they could have done so much better, but I am not dismissing the success it has had either.

-Jason

Bishop
04-10-2016, 10:40 AM
It's not talking about how much money MoS made. It is talking about pure profit. In order for it to hit the mark that most Marvel movies do (in percentage of profit), and I've got to believe DC was hoping to do better than Marvel, they need to make about 1.15 billion.

Jason Powell
04-10-2016, 11:15 AM
It's not talking about how much money MoS made. It is talking about pure profit. In order for it to hit the mark that most Marvel movies do (in percentage of profit), and I've got to believe DC was hoping to do better than Marvel, they need to make about 1.15 billion.

Yeah that is 49 million more in profit at the box office so far. We don't know DVD sales but just going by basic logic DVD sales should be higher also, much higher since they are releasing to versions of it. Now I agree that it didn't do what they wanted, which is a billion +, but it has profited more than MOS so far.

Jason Powell
04-10-2016, 06:03 PM
That is about 80 million now and should be over 100 million by next week. Heck it might hit a billion yet before it leaves theaters.

omega sentry
04-23-2016, 09:07 PM
What does Star Wars have to do with the plot of Batman V Superman? A person can be dead on about one thing and dead wrong about another. This thread is about Batman V Superman not Star Wars so lets just address each in it's respective thread.

Ok still haven't wrote anything over there damn life getting in the way.

Anyways it doesn't my pet peeve with that was TFA has writing flaws and no one points them out cause reasons.

Anyway your objections to the movie are subjective. It's all about point of view for example the whole Martha deal. On the internet people make it out to be a flaw. But is it?

Is superman not allow to mess with batmans head? By guilting him?
Superman said:

Martha is going to die because of you!

He could of said my mom is but that might have not had as much of a guilt trip added. Yes there are flaws some can be addressed some have to have to be excused depending.... But man this movie was not as bad as people make it out to be. They dropped the ball on lex.....

dannycruz
05-02-2016, 11:28 AM
i'm still undecided myself. i think at best, it'll be a cool visual spectacle but the thing is i don't know if i want to sit through like 2 hours of dour, moody bullshit to get to like 20 or 30 minutes of the good stuff.

Finally saw it over the weekend and surprisingly, I didn't have too much of a problem with most of the film and to be honest, found it to be pretty intriguing mostly (though I can understand why people think differently). If anything, the last act of the movie is where everything falls apart for me and when I stopped giving a shit.
Disappointed with the big fight between Batman and Superman. I know we live in a world where Batman is the cooler character and I guess there were narrative reasons at play as well but, Superman came off as an ineffectual pussy. It was just way too one sided. I kept waiting for the big payoff from Batman continually getting the upper hand but, it never happened.



Also, Doomsday was nonsense and really wasnt needed at all. The film could've concluded with them teaming up to save his mother, capturing Luthor and I would've been okay with that.

Duane Korslund
05-02-2016, 12:02 PM
I'm gonna jump on the unpopular bandwagon and say I kinda dug the movie too...It wasnt nearly as cluttered as many made it out to be in my opinion...Yes they were trying to shove a ton of stuff in there...Its a sequel to MoS, its a Batman movie, a Superman movie, and has to set up Justice League...its a lot to handle...but my major issues had very little to do with pacing, or plot...
Lex was written horribly. I dont blame Jesse Eisenburg...I think he did the best he could with what they gave him...he shouldn't have been cast at all though...
Wonder Woman was somewhat shoe horned in,and didnt get much action.
Both Batman and Superman acted wildly contrary to their character, even with extreme motivations they still are who they are, but the writing sort of betrayed that.
The BvS fight was sort of shoe horned in as well...like it was an afterthought when it should have been the main event.
And of course the finale...well...that was the biggest suck of the movie I think...its just not what I wanted to see...and maybe should have been in another movie...down the road. I dunno.
Everything leading up to the fight was pretty good though...thematically I thought it was great...god vs man...ultimate power...corruption...etc...
Overall I was happy until the end. There were a few moments that stuck with me well after I saw the movie, and that's one of my criteria for a good movie. So yeah.
Of course, boilerplate disclaimer, this is all my opinion and should be viewed as such, we all have our own :)

dannycruz
05-03-2016, 09:44 PM
As far as Jesse Eisenberg, I would guess that maybe they were trying to go for that thinking outside the box type of casting like Heath Ledger with the Joker but, it didn't really work.

Buckyrig
05-04-2016, 10:20 AM
Saw this a little while back.

8tmJRQ6IKkk

Bishop
05-04-2016, 11:01 AM
Saw this a little while back. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tmJRQ6IKkk)

That is spot on

Also, this...

pTuyfQ5CR4Q

Buckyrig
05-04-2016, 11:52 AM
"I vote reboots." :laugh:

omega sentry
05-06-2016, 12:44 PM
I guess it's ok for tims batman to kill but not this
Batman. But has he killed? Has he?

Luke Noonan
05-06-2016, 01:54 PM
It's KGBeast that I feel sorry for in this sordid tale. When's he going to get the fanboi-credibility he deserves? PS, this board needs more smilies, there's no ninja ones.

Jason Powell
05-06-2016, 02:55 PM
I guess it's ok for tims batman to kill but not this
Batman. But has he killed? Has he?


People always cry about how good Keaton's Batman was but he killed at least 5 people we saw - and not on accident - he did it viscously and I would argue far more violently.

And in Batman Begins, Bruce killed no telling how many people when he destroyed the temple.

People are just over reacting to Ben's version Killing people cause they have some need to hate the version.

I can understand not liking the story or how Superman was done, by Batman was awesome.

-Jason

dannycruz
05-06-2016, 03:25 PM
the scene with him shooting at kgbeast was straight out of dark knight returns. it didn't bother me as much as the dodgy physical logistics of him being able to shield diane lane immediately after did.

Bishop
05-06-2016, 04:25 PM
(3/28/16) It is already a success in many ways and made it's budget back so it is just profit now. And it will reach WBs magic number, 1 billion, before it exits theaters (I give it 4 or 5 weeks). Now I do not think it will hit 2 Billion but I wouldn't be surprised if it did also with DVD sales.

Just throwing it out there that it has been almost 6 weeks and it is still short the 'magic number.' It is sitting around 864 million, and any continuing profits from theaters will be obliterated with the release of Civil War this weekend.

The controversy around this movie appears to have fueled some major doubts within DC. There are all sorts of rumors of Warner's exec's trying to micro-manage Zack Snyder and the directors of the other JL-related movies (Aquaman and Flash) being on the verge of dropping out of the projects. Whether you like BvS or not, you can't deny that the movie split movie goers opinions and was not as universally embraced as the bean counters at WB wanted it to be. It will be interesting to see what the fallout of this is, and how these other projects are effected.

Bishop
05-06-2016, 04:32 PM
I just read an article that Affleck has been moved up to Exec Producer on the JL movie. This is good news, I think. Affleck will hopefully help steer Snyder in his story telling and editing to produce a more cohesive story.

Jason Powell
05-06-2016, 06:33 PM
Just throwing it out there that it has been almost 6 weeks and it is still short the 'magic number.' It is sitting around 864 million, and any continuing profits from theaters will be obliterated with the release of Civil War this weekend.

The controversy around this movie appears to have fueled some major doubts within DC. There are all sorts of rumors of Warner's exec's trying to micro-manage Zack Snyder and the directors of the other JL-related movies (Aquaman and Flash) being on the verge of dropping out of the projects. Whether you like BvS or not, you can't deny that the movie split movie goers opinions and was not as universally embraced as the bean counters at WB wanted it to be. It will be interesting to see what the fallout of this is, and how these other projects are effected.


I have to agree Snyder dug himself into a hole and WB needs to step in and get the series back on track. I hate to say it but Marvel is the better movie producer right now. But I don't hate what Snyder did, it just that he tried to do too much. But there is still hope. I mean If Deadpool can come back like it did after the Wolverine crap, anything can be saved. Maybe WB and Snyder learned a lesson from this. I just don't understand how S.W. succeeded where this failed.

Luke Noonan
05-07-2016, 09:51 PM
Okay, I'm a DC fanboi, and I'm pretty happy with this film. Seemed to me for Lex they were purposefully going for the younger Lex portrayal as seen in various media, but particularly Superman: Birthright:

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/files/2009/08/smso_1_5p_prev-2-copy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1B6i4e3.jpg?1
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/luthorkent11.jpg
Since my main concern was they were going to make Lex too old, especially for the future DC movie-verse, I'm glad they went the way they did. I think Jesse Eisenberg can develop the character with time, so that we get to the more serious and angry Lex that he is when he's older. And if I hear one more suggestion for Bryan Cranston I'm going to fcuking swear... :banana: He would've been good as Commissioner Gordon, though.

I'm happy that they crammed so many details into the script that would mainly appeal/be familiar to comic readers because my other worry was that they'd play 'safe' by making it a simpler, more accessible family movie, like the Avengers. I'm also just glad to see a superhero film that isn't the damn Avengers or MCU-related.

Bishop
05-07-2016, 11:05 PM
Cranston would have been an amazing Luthor.

Luke Noonan
05-07-2016, 11:23 PM
Cranston would have been an amazing Luthor.
Aw, hell naw. :bounce:
Any actor can shave their head, we don't need to have someone with actual hairless crime boss experience in order to play Lex. Besides, again, he would be too old to play Luthor, who is generally shown to be in his mid thirties at the latest. We've seen an older Lex in Gene Hackman, Kevin Spacey and the guy from Lois & Clark. So once again, I am glad they chose not to repeat what's already been done many times.
Bryan Cranston would've been great as Gordon, or maybe Hugo Strange, Dr Sivana, Captain Cold, various other characters. Just not Lex, IMO.

dannycruz
05-08-2016, 11:01 AM
man, civil war really put bvs to shame with the hero vs hero concept.

Bishop
05-08-2016, 03:02 PM
man, civil war really put bvs to shame with the hero vs hero concept.

Agreed 100%. Civil War was a lot of fun.

omega sentry
05-08-2016, 06:27 PM
People always cry about how good Keaton's Batman was but he killed at least 5 people we saw - and not on accident - he did it viscously and I would argue far more violently.

And in Batman Begins, Bruce killed no telling how many people when he destroyed the temple.

People are just over reacting to Ben's version Killing people cause they have some need to hate the version.

I can understand not liking the story or how Superman was done, by Batman was awesome.

-Jason

To be honest I like this super over the goody too shoes superman. His darker feel can make his villain roster a lot more interesting. Something that people have always argued that can't be done with how bright and perfect superman had to be.

Luke Noonan
05-09-2016, 02:24 AM
man, civil war really put bvs to shame with the hero vs hero concept.
Spoil it for me please, so I don't have to watch it?

dannycruz
05-09-2016, 10:43 AM
Sure, of course..

Tony Stark reveals that he's Kylo Ren's father, gets stabbed by Kylo and falls to his doom only to land in the trash compactor with Captain Phasma and members of Mummenschanz.

Luke Noonan
05-09-2016, 12:10 PM
Sure, of course..

Tony Stark reveals that he's Kylo Ren's father, gets stabbed by Kylo and falls to his doom only to land in the trash compactor with Captain Phasma and members of Mummenschanz.

Man, is the MCU completely out of ideas? :slap: We've been there a hundred times. Who's in the post-credits scene?

omega sentry
05-09-2016, 12:29 PM
Leeeroy Jenkins! Blizzard is merging with Disney.

Duane Korslund
05-09-2016, 12:42 PM
world of mousecraft...

dannycruz
05-09-2016, 01:32 PM
Who's in the post-credits scene?

Bucky takes a nap and an advertisement for the spider-man movie.

dannycruz
05-09-2016, 01:45 PM
Unless it was addressed in a piece of throwaway dialogue that I missed, the biggest nitpick for me in Civil War is the fact that it was never mentioned that the government tried to nuke NYC in Avengers 1. That pretty much makes Tony's argument for them being kept in check hugely flawed.

Duane Korslund
05-09-2016, 03:03 PM
I havent seen it yet, but I'm curious (without throwing down any Spoilage): Do they address the issue that its Hugely out of Character for Tony to support keeping heroes in check like this? He's always the Maverick, the one who rebels and Cap is the one that usually tows the line...I kinda thought the same thoughts when reading the original Civil War comics...
Sure Cap represents freedom and democracy, but his military background would lend more to the fact that power needs to be checked...that a chain of command must be established.

Luke Noonan
05-09-2016, 03:23 PM
Bucky takes a nap and an advertisement for the spider-man movie.
I thought you were just joking until I looked it up.

Leeeroy Jenkins! Blizzard is merging with Disney.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCq7_1fkNPw

dannycruz
05-09-2016, 03:58 PM
I havent seen it yet, but I'm curious (without throwing down any Spoilage): Do they address the issue that its Hugely out of Character for Tony to support keeping heroes in check like this? He's always the Maverick, the one who rebels and Cap is the one that usually tows the line...I kinda thought the same thoughts when reading the original Civil War comics...
Sure Cap represents freedom and democracy, but his military background would lend more to the fact that power needs to be checked...that a chain of command must be established.

Keeping it as vague as possible....that isn't specifically addressed IIRC but there is a scene involving Tony that was pretty much the catalyst for him change his views.

I agree about what you had said about the characterization of those two but, I'll add that in the comics, Cap has had a history of going against the government when they've tried to get too much control over his activities.

Moonrider
05-10-2016, 01:06 AM
Civil War's basic plot is pretty much similar to Disney's Frozen.

Princess Steve must find his missing sister Queen Bucky and thaw his frozen heart, before a guy with a mustache and his goons find and kill him first. In the end, Black Panther learns the act of true love and Tony Stark must learn to let it goooo.... let it goooo...

The synopsis above sounds better in my head.

Jason Powell
05-12-2016, 11:02 AM
I havent seen it yet, but I'm curious (without throwing down any Spoilage): Do they address the issue that its Hugely out of Character for Tony to support keeping heroes in check like this? He's always the Maverick, the one who rebels and Cap is the one that usually tows the line...I kinda thought the same thoughts when reading the original Civil War comics...
Sure Cap represents freedom and democracy, but his military background would lend more to the fact that power needs to be checked...that a chain of command must be established.

You are ignoring everything we learned from Winter Solider.

Cap saw, first hand, that the Government can be compromised - in this case by Hydra.

And we also learn in Winter Solider when Fury tells Steve that Tony made the carriers which soul purpose is to seek out mega humans and predict whether they may or may not be a potential threats in the future, and if so, kill them.

To me it makes Tony look like a really bad person, no matter his good intentions.

And I was very disappointed in Civil War, it just was like a retelling of the same story but minus Fury, add more Avengers, and instead of Hydra, it is Zimo. But the plot is very much the same. Also, anyone else disappointed Cap didn't die? I mean, I love Cap, but they could of had Tony accidently kill him and then that cause him to rethink his ways, and then in the very end, show him in a tube being worked on by Wakanda doctors showing they are bringing him back and maybe Quick Silver in another. That would of been so much better of an ending. Marvel may of made the better movie but not by much. I think Deadpool is the best superhero movie this year, at least so far.

Bishop
05-12-2016, 11:28 AM
I like your idea for the ending, but I loved the movie. It wasn't perfect story-wise, but it was a perfect action/effects movie to kick off the summer movie season. At least, it was to me.

Jason Powell
05-12-2016, 11:50 AM
I like your idea for the ending, but I loved the movie. It wasn't perfect story-wise, but it was a perfect action/effects movie to kick off the summer movie season. At least, it was to me.

It was okay, but Deadpool did sooooooo much more of a better job. Also what was with all the cursing? Even Spider-Man Cursed. I think since Deadpool did so well everyone is trying to imitate it. This to me was a very small step up from BATMAN V SUPERMAN. I am not even bothering with X-MEN so I am really hopping SUICIDE SQUIDE brings it home this year. If not, I hate to say it but this is really a disappointing year for superhero movies.

Buckyrig
05-12-2016, 11:52 AM
I enjoyed Civil War, but it was dumb. Way less dumb than the comic Civil War, but that's a low bar.

I realized S.H.I.E.L.D. has collapsed in the MCU, but when was it established that the Avengers were a private force in the first place?

And since when does the UN have teeth? :laugh:

The movie's entire purpose is to set up the new status quo for the MCU going forward. Kind of weak if you stop to think about it for more than a few seconds.

Bishop
05-12-2016, 12:36 PM
It was okay, but Deadpool did sooooooo much more of a better job. Also what was with all the cursing? Even Spider-Man Cursed. I think since Deadpool did so well everyone is trying to imitate it. This to me was a very small step up from BATMAN V SUPERMAN. I am not even bothering with X-MEN so I am really hopping SUICIDE SQUIDE brings it home this year. If not, I hate to say it but this is really a disappointing year for superhero movies.

I think it's a stretch to say Civil War had cursing because Deadpool did well. This movie was way into post production when Deadpool came out. Speaking of cursing, what the heck was up with all the cursing in Deadpool? It was a bit over the top. There's no reason that movie couldn't have been PG-13 and still made a boatload of money.

Jason Powell
05-12-2016, 01:37 PM
I think it's a stretch to say Civil War had cursing because Deadpool did well. This movie was way into post production when Deadpool came out. Speaking of cursing, what the heck was up with all the cursing in Deadpool? It was a bit over the top. There's no reason that movie couldn't have been PG-13 and still made a boatload of money.

Then explain why there was so much cursing? Not saying there was not any in other movies but not to this extreme. I mean If nothing else it was unneeded lazyman humor. And I disagree. DEADPOOL had to be R rated. Fans expected it and it was a large selling point.

Bishop
05-12-2016, 02:08 PM
Then explain why there was so much cursing? Not saying there was not any in other movies but not to this extreme. I mean If nothing else it was unneeded lazyman humor. And I disagree. DEADPOOL had to be R rated. Fans expected it and it was a large selling point.

Civil War had the cursing because the writers put it in the script. To say it was because of Deadpool is silly. Civil War started shooting in April 2015 and wrapped principal photography in August of 2015. Deadpool started shooting in March of 2015. There is no way the two influenced each other at the script level.

Deadpool only had to be R for the fanboys. If you edited the few brief scenes of nudity, and tempered Reynolds' running commentary a bit, the movie could have easily kept the spirit of the character, the humor, and the action, and been much more accessible to a wider audience. I'm not discounting its success. I'm just saying that I think it would have found the same or more success if they had used a little more restraint in some areas. Even Liefeld, the creator of Deadpool, has said as much. Link (http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/rob-liefeld-says-deadpool-movie-can-be-pg-13)

Buckyrig
05-12-2016, 02:53 PM
DEADPOOL had to be R rated. Fans expected it and it was a large selling point.

Fans are stupid.

And a drop in the bucket when it comes to box office.

My guess is more people went to see it because it was a Ryan Reynolds movie than because they cared about the character in any way.

Bishop
05-12-2016, 03:26 PM
My guess is more people went to see it because it was a Ryan Reynolds movie than because they cared about the character in any way.

This initially, and then word of mouth.

Luke Noonan
05-12-2016, 09:15 PM
Fans are stupid.
Quite an opinion, given this is ostensibly a site about comicbooks. :har:


And a drop in the bucket when it comes to box office.

My guess is more people went to see it because it was a Ryan Reynolds movie than because they cared about the character in any way.

This initially, and then word of mouth.
I'd like to see some figures before buying either of those opinions. People might go to see a superhero/superantihero movie as simply another action or sci-fi film, but by this point in time, given popular culture, I'd be surprised if anyone chose to see Deadpool without knowing it was a based on a comic, and I'd also doubt that Ryan Reynolds has enough appeal on his own to outweigh those who would go for the aformentioned reasons, especially given the way he appears in all of this film's marketing.


Deadpool only had to be R for the fanboys. If you edited the few brief scenes of nudity, and tempered Reynolds' running commentary a bit, the movie could have easily kept the spirit of the character, the humor, and the action, and been much more accessible to a wider audience.You both seem certain that making it child-friendly is only a good thing. Would that have improved the Daredevil series, too, in your opinions?

Buckyrig
05-12-2016, 09:44 PM
and I'd also doubt that Ryan Reynolds has enough appeal on his own to outweigh those who would go for the aformentioned reasons, especially given the way he appears in all of this film's marketing.

Reynolds has a huge man-crush following similar to Paul Rudd's. I don't get it myself. They guy is amusing, but he has a weirdly intense fanbase.

You both seem certain that making it child-friendly is only a good thing.

No one said that. But wallowing in a child's-eye-view of maturity is never a plus. It's an idea that swallowed the 90s and helped send Marvel into bankruptcy.

Luke Noonan
05-12-2016, 10:53 PM
No one said that. Actually, Bishop did at the top of this page, as I quoted him: "Deadpool only had to be R for the fanboys. If you edited the few brief scenes of nudity, and tempered Reynolds' running commentary a bit, the movie could have easily kept the spirit of the character, the humor, and the action, and been much more accessible to a wider audience. I'm not discounting its success. I'm just saying that I think it would have found the same or more success if they had used a little more restraint in some areas. Even Liefeld, the creator of Deadpool, has said as much. Link"

But wallowing in a child's-eye-view of maturity is never a plus. It's an idea that swallowed the 90s and helped send Marvel into bankruptcy.Who said anything about wallowing in a childs' eye view of maturity? What I'm referring to is deviating from the MCU formula of bloodless carnage, church-level language (lampshaded in Avengers 2 by Captain America) and the nailbiting tension of superco-workers who keep getting somewhat annoyed with each other in slightly overcast daylight. The eventual confrontation in CA: Civil War trailers by now just look to me like the newsteam battles in Anchorman, but a bit less aggressive. A lot of these points were even mentioned in the YT video on the previous page, which you seemed to agree with: Saw this a little while back.

8tmJRQ6IKkk

Bishop
05-12-2016, 11:41 PM
Actually, Bishop did at the top of this page, as I quoted him: "Deadpool only had to be R for the fanboys. If you edited the few brief scenes of nudity, and tempered Reynolds' running commentary a bit, the movie could have easily kept the spirit of the character, the humor, and the action, and been much more accessible to a wider audience. I'm not discounting its success. I'm just saying that I think it would have found the same or more success if they had used a little more restraint in some areas. Even Liefeld, the creator of Deadpool, has said as much. Link"


Even my quote that you pasted didn't say what you said it did. I said 'wider audience' not 'children'.

Luke Noonan
05-13-2016, 12:07 AM
Even my quote that you pasted didn't say what you said it did. I said 'wider audience' not 'children'.
So, lowering the age rating but not for reasons of age, but sensibility? Okay, but you didn't say that, you talked about lowering it from an R rating by removing mature content to make it more accessible for a wider audience. To me, that plainly suggests a younger audience.

Moonrider
05-13-2016, 04:38 AM
I think Bishop has a point since Deadpool's source materials were never R rated to begin with, though that's probably more because of the cartoon-y feel of its comic book violence. Nevertheless theoretically the movie could have been PG-13 without losing much of its humor and charm. In fact it was even considered by the filmmakers at one point.

However, the rating proved to be the least thing that the studio worried about as Fox didn't even care for a PG-13 Deadpool. They just found the character too dumb to invest on, period. Much of Deadpool's success and ultimately Fox' approval can be attributed to the internet where he's already a rich source of memes, and since it's all the same to the studio anyway then why not make it R-rated? It's creatively liberating for the writers and it sets itself as a great counter programming for all the other massive comic book movies.

Bishop
05-13-2016, 08:41 AM
So, lowering the age rating but not for reasons of age, but sensibility? Okay, but you didn't say that, you talked about lowering it from an R rating by removing mature content to make it more accessible for a wider audience. To me, that plainly suggests a younger audience.

There are plenty of adults that won't go see an R rated movie, but will go see a PG-13. This is why so many movies are targeted at PG-13 rather than R.

dannycruz
05-13-2016, 08:57 AM
I thought it was well known that Deadpool's marketing campaign was a huge factor for the movie's big opening weekend. The fact that it was really good and word of mouth helped it have legs at the box office.
Yes, Ryan Reynolds is popular but, before DP, he was becoming more known for having a string of box office duds then anything else.

Buckyrig
05-13-2016, 12:24 PM
Who said anything about wallowing in a childs' eye view of maturity? What I'm referring to is deviating from the MCU formula of bloodless carnage, church-level language (lampshaded in Avengers 2 by Captain America) and the nailbiting tension of superco-workers who keep getting somewhat annoyed with each other in slightly overcast daylight.

You're reading the comments more broadly than they're written. Maturity is fine. If it is actual maturity and it suits the story/property. An R-rated cut of a Batman/Superman movie is bonkers. Personally, I don't think a Superman movie should even have a PG-13 rating (although it almost feels like PG has been functionally phased out by the MPAA for anything other than animated films).

And sophomoric, foul-mouthed etc etc material is fine too, as long as it doesn't have pretensions of being something other than what it is.

There's this weird thread in comic fandom that R-ratings somehow validate certain properties. But most mainstream superhero comic properties don't naturally slide into that slot. It feels like that mentality we have when we're kids that there's something extra cool about R-rated movies. But then you grow up and they just become movies.

Bishop
05-13-2016, 01:19 PM
There's this weird thread in comic fandom that R-ratings somehow validate certain properties. But most mainstream superhero comic properties don't naturally slide into that slot. It feels like that mentality we have when we're kids that there's something extra cool about R-rated movies. But then you grow up and they just become movies.

This. 100% this.

Duane Korslund
05-13-2016, 01:27 PM
You're reading the comments more broadly than they're written. Maturity is fine. If it is actual maturity and it suits the story/property. An R-rated cut of a Batman/Superman movie is bonkers. Personally, I don't think a Superman movie should even have a PG-13 rating (although it almost feels like PG has been functionally phased out by the MPAA for anything other than animated films).

And sophomoric, foul-mouthed etc etc material is fine too, as long as it doesn't have pretensions of being something other than what it is.

There's this weird thread in comic fandom that R-ratings somehow validate certain properties. But most mainstream superhero comic properties don't naturally slide into that slot. It feels like that mentality we have when we're kids that there's something extra cool about R-rated movies. But then you grow up and they just become movies.

I'd say if ANY property would fit into the R category it'd be Deadpool. Granted I think that the movie could have used 50 to 60% less swearing (it was a bit much for sure), but I believe that a well timed F bomb here or there really spices up the dialogue in a movie.
But I think the R rating appeal was for the gratuitous violence, which I think made the movie work. Deadpool is just one of those dudes who kills...and as a merc with lots of specialized skills, its probably pretty bloody...I think showing it worked.

I wonder if there's a certain amount of F Bombs that have to go off before a movie gets an R rating....Xmen First Class had one Fbomb(Wolverine) and is pg-13. I guess once it becomes gratuitous...is 2 gratuitous?

Jason Powell
05-13-2016, 02:41 PM
Fans are stupid.

And a drop in the bucket when it comes to box office.

My guess is more people went to see it because it was a Ryan Reynolds movie than because they cared about the character in any way.


Really, please explain the failure of Green Lantern?

How about the version of DEADPOOL in X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE?


The fact is they made it no secret that the movie would be rated "R". It was a huge selling point ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6pXybWGIS0

If it was not "R" it could still be a good movie however would it have generated as much attention?

-Jason

Buckyrig
05-13-2016, 04:03 PM
Really, please explain the failure of Green Lantern?

It wasn't a good movie.

Quality matters.

By your logic, Deadpool would have done well because of it's R rating and marketing campaign regardless of quality.

Quality matters.

Luke Noonan
05-13-2016, 06:14 PM
There are plenty of adults that won't go see an R rated movie, but will go see a PG-13. This is why so many movies are targeted at PG-13 rather than R.I'd be convinced by figures, if you have them, but otherwise that sounds very unlikely to me. If a studio decided to tone down all the violence in a film about a wise-cracking, mutant acrobat hitman in a red mask called Deadpool, I would assume it's not so they can market it to the romantic comedy, arthouse or mature citizen crowd, it's because kids would love see a film about that, not to mention the merchandising they'd get afterwards. They toned down the violence in TMNT, The Mask, and even the Terminator franchise, are you really telling me you think that was not to draw in younger viewers, it was for people looking for mature science-fiction without any violence or unnecessary language in it?

You're reading the comments more broadly than they're written. Maturity is fine. If it is actual maturity and it suits the story/property. An R-rated cut of a Batman/Superman movie is bonkers. I agree - unless it was a faithful adaptation of The Killing Joke, maybe, and there are probably other exceptions, too.
Personally, I don't think a Superman movie should even have a PG-13 rating (although it almost feels like PG has been functionally phased out by the MPAA for anything other than animated films).
So, it should not contain any violence? Have you ever read a DC comic?

And sophomoric, foul-mouthed etc etc material is fine too, as long as it doesn't have pretensions of being something other than what it is.
I can think of many films full of such language, including the racist and homophobic variety, and which are still in many ways far from realistic - would you look down on them as having "pretensions"?
I think a distinction I draw here is that almost any watchable or readable piece of fiction is going to require big suspension of disbelief at some point. The one area you can always apply realism is through the characterisation, and the main means of revealing that is through dialogue. In short, swearing is almost always realistic.

There's this weird thread in comic fandom that R-ratings somehow validate certain properties. But most mainstream superhero comic properties don't naturally slide into that slot. Depends on the property. I don't read a lot of Marvel, but from what I hear the Avengers movies are pretty faithful to the comics in terms of dialogue and the very sparse depictions of violence, despite constant action sequences. Maybe in the comic that works, but for a movie it feels childish and a little pointless knowing that that major European city you can see being elevated into the troposphere by a mad robot isn't going to result in one single death.
I'm also not saying that R-rating is necessary to overcome that, since TDK was PG-13 (despite notably pushing the boundary there with the pencil scene etc) and while everyone talks of it being such a departure from the canon, I think the Nolan films were actually very faithful in tone and subject to the comics - the editing and cutting away from actual wounds worked since all the focus of the sequence was on the perpetrator of the violence, and not the victims (ie the audience, the camera and the editors stayed focused on Heath Ledger, not the guy he'd just gunned down/stabbed/whatever). This is also often how it works in the comics themselves, and not just with Batman.
So tell me again, you seriously want an all-ages live action Superman film?



It feels like that mentality we have when we're kids that there's something extra cool about R-rated movies. But then you grow up and they just become movies.
This. 100% this.
Yes, I remember that well from when I was a kid, and it doesn't only apply to comicbook adaptations. But once again, I am not talking about that. I'm suggesting that a script that contains violence and/or swearing usually leads to a film that's serious or mature in tone. Or, if it's still full of jokes and one-liners, it'll be a dark comedy of some kind. And both are preferable to the now very predictable MCU method.
But all of this just my opinion.

Jason Powell
05-14-2016, 01:00 AM
It wasn't a good movie.

Quality matters.

By your logic, Deadpool would have done well because of it's R rating and marketing campaign regardless of quality.

Quality matters.

No your whole theory was that the movie was a success because of Ryan Reynolds. I'm saying if you remove any factor of it success, story being one of them, then the movie would not have done as well. Like it or not, it being a R rated Superhero movie was a major draw.

Moonrider
05-15-2016, 12:25 AM
By your logic, Deadpool would have done well because of it's R rating and marketing campaign regardless of quality.

I doubt that the R ratings alone would sell a movie, but theoretically any movie regardless of quality would have done well if given a proper marketing campaign. Just look at Sharknado.

Jason Powell
05-15-2016, 03:32 PM
I doubt that the R ratings alone would sell a movie, but theoretically any movie regardless of quality would have done well if given a proper marketing campaign. Just look at Sharknado.

True but a strong part of their marketing campaign was that this was an "R" rated Superhero movie. And Deadpool fans were expecting that. You did the fans and you risk losing them. You loose them then you have to rely on non fans taking intrest enough to carry the movie. Can it happen, sure, but never underestimate the power of the fans.

omega sentry
05-18-2016, 11:29 AM
I'm not a avid deadpool follower what from what I've seen the comic is nowhere near as obscene as the movie.

I don't understand the stripper scene what so ever, it didn't have nothing to do with the story of the movie. She could of been working as a bar tender anywhere. I think they added that for the sake of adding it. Every other scene they are cleverly covering up
People. I've seen more violent movies with a pg13 rating.

I don't understand the whole R concept anymore anyways. The ratings are all messed up this days. There is a lot of pg13 that would have been rated R back in the day.

So to me R means langue and or nudity just because. Does that change the movie ? Not at all but for some reason people seem to think just because there is a flying butt or some one says F$@@! Is a much better movie... It's ridiculous.

Jason Powell
05-18-2016, 07:47 PM
I'm not a avid deadpool follower what from what I've seen the comic is nowhere near as obscene as the movie.

I don't understand the stripper scene what so ever, it didn't have nothing to do with the story of the movie. She could of been working as a bar tender anywhere. I think they added that for the sake of adding it. Every other scene they are cleverly covering up
People. I've seen more violent movies with a pg13 rating.

I don't understand the whole R concept anymore anyways. The ratings are all messed up this days. There is a lot of pg13 that would have been rated R back in the day.

So to me R means langue and or nudity just because. Does that change the movie ? Not at all but for some reason people seem to think just because there is a flying butt or some one says F$@@! Is a much better movie... It's ridiculous.

You are right, this movie would be considered PG-13 in most cases. Kick Ass was R rated and it was not near as Violent and I don't think had any nudity, just cursing. But the rated board automatically gives superhero movies a harder time because they believe they should be for kids. It is silly really but fact is Wolverine is going to be R rated, they are talking about doing an R rated X-FORCE, even GAMBIT is going to be a little more extreme; though I do not know if it will R rated.

Fact is, FOX is really pushing the R rated thing.

Luke Noonan
05-18-2016, 08:09 PM
Here's a crazy idea: if they made the next Fantastic Four reboot R-rated, maybe it wouldn't blow like the wind?

Bishop
05-18-2016, 09:50 PM
The problem with the Fantastic Four movies hasn't been the rating. It's been the complete disconnect with the fans, poor writing, poor acting, poor directing, and the studio not understanding how to treat the property. I guarantee that if Marvel had the license they could make an amazing F4 movie without hitting an R rating.

Luke Noonan
05-18-2016, 10:22 PM
Yeah, I know, I was joking. But in all seriousness, if they made a Marvel Max (imprint) film with a genuinely sinister portrayal of Dr Doom or Kang or whomever, something approaching the way the Nolan Bat-films handled villains in which at least half the film is their movie as well as the protagonists, it could be pretty interesting.

Moonrider
05-19-2016, 01:03 AM
True but a strong part of their marketing campaign was that this was an "R" rated Superhero movie. And Deadpool fans were expecting that. You did the fans and you risk losing them. You loose them then you have to rely on non fans taking interest enough to carry the movie. Can it happen, sure, but never underestimate the power of the fans.

Deadpool was an R-rated comedy that was properly marketed as an R-rated comedy. The ratings alone don't make it a surefire hit, and there's a high chance that it would still do well as a PG-13 movie if it has pretty much the same quality and also given the right marketing treatment.

Personally there's more than a few scenes in that movie that I wished they would cut or worked around to make it less gory or have less profanity. But if there's one thing about the R rated Deadpool that I like, is that it's the first superhero movie I could wholly describe to other people about that I can end with...

"Also, sodomy."

:banana:

Jason Powell
05-19-2016, 01:15 AM
Deadpool was an R-rated comedy that was properly marketed as an R-rated comedy. The ratings alone don't make it a surefire hit, and there's a high chance that it would still do well as a PG-13 movie if it has pretty much the same quality and also given the right marketing treatment.

Personally there's more than a few scenes in that movie that I wished they would cut or worked around to make it less gory or have less profanity. But if there's one thing about the R rated Deadpool that I like, is that it's the first superhero movie I could wholly describe to other people about that I can end with...

"Also, sodomy."

:banana:

I agree they might have been able to make a good PG-13 movie but, as I said, there is no denying that it's "R" rating was a major marketing tool. Fox obviously thinks it is a good one because they are now using that same "R" rating to market Wolverine, an X-Force movie, and they even mention a possibility for Gambit. So whether it was just a coincidence or not, it appears that FOX believes in it and, as I stated, you can see a step up in other Superhero movies as well. It may be all a fad but it appears to be working.

omega sentry
05-20-2016, 01:10 PM
I hope they don't ruin XForce with unnecessary tits and a$$.....

Duane Korslund
05-20-2016, 01:19 PM
I hope they don't ruin XForce with unnecessary tits and a$$.....

That's all the original Xforce comic was....and pouches....

omega sentry
05-21-2016, 02:25 AM
Hardy har har.....you know what now that I think about it.... Shoulder pads and pouches were a welcome change over just wearing pajamas.